From the context etc, I think it's safe to say Lucas was talking about the central object of the film that Indy's is on a quest to find, a la the Ark, Sankara Stones or Holy Grail.

It's definitely 'safe' to say it -- I just wouldn't put any money on it!

As a student of the art Lucas pays homage in many ways to the greats who have paved the path before him. He does not toss filmography terms around losely. As an analogy that would be like a priest/minister/rabbi/imam misquoting scripture to the faithful.

The quote is a typical Lucas word dance -- I believe it is "safe(er) to say" that he is talking both of the introductory, non-plot related McGuffin and then deal with a lead-in to the 'sacred object plus the human dynamics of the creative process.

And now for the big reason I think he's talking about the main quest object:

Why would somebody be worried about something in the first fifteen minutes of a film, and no where else, being controverisal? It just doesn't make sense. Also, if this was just the opening of the movie he's referring to, why refer to ealing with it through the supernatural? Have any other opening objects involved the supernatural even peripherally? No.

As a student of the art Lucas pays homage in many ways to the greats who have paved the path before him. He does not toss filmography terms around losely.

Says who? This is the guy who calls his own invention, lightsabers, "laser swords" in the DVD commentary.

Simply put, the term "McGuffin" has evolved over the decades since Hitchcock coined it. And from a certain point of view, the Ark, Sankara Stones and Holy Grail are somewhat interchangeable in the plots of the existing movies, the Sankara Stones especially, meaning they can fit your strict definition of the term.

I've been digging through my Cinescape back issues looking for an article that detailed all the Indy 4 scripts and I can't find it. I know the titles were Indiana Jones and the Sons of Darkness, Indiana Jones and the Garden of Immortal Peaches, Indiana Jones and the Saucermen from Mars and one more I've forgotten. It's driving me crazy because it was a great article. I have no idea what happened to it.

Garden of Immortal Peaches was also known as Indy and the Monkey King and Indy and the Garden of Eternal Life, and was written by Chris Columbous in the mid 80's and was actually in the running for what became Last Crusade.

It's a fairly mediocre script though, like Saucermen.

EDIT: When does the next SW Insider come out, maybe the Indy 4 section that was mentioned will have some new facts for us to chew on.

As a student of the art Lucas pays homage in many ways to the greats who have paved the path before him. He does not toss filmography terms around losely.

Says who? This is the guy who calls his own invention, lightsabers, "laser swords" in the DVD commentary.

Simply put, the term "McGuffin" has evolved over the decades since Hitchcock coined it. And from a certain point of view, the Ark, Sankara Stones and Holy Grail are somewhat interchangeable in the plots of the existing movies, the Sankara Stones especially, meaning they can fit your strict definition of the term.

"I've discovered that most critics themselves are cinematically illiterate. They don't really know much about movies. They don't know the history. They don't know the technology. They don't know anything. "[/}
~ George Lucas, Academy of Achievement Interview

"The experimental side of things, the experiment in form, happened in the 20s with Eisenstein and the other Russians did a lot of experimenting. In the 60s, you did get a lot of experimentation, especially here in San Francisco with Bruce Connor and all those guys. But it was too far out of the mainstream. And in the end the foreign film industries wanted to do what America was doing. They wanted to have their movies seen all over the world, they wanted audiences to love them. And to do that, you can't be too experimental, because most people aren't going to be attracted to that. They're going to be attracted to storytelling?storytelling in a way that they're used to . . . . I grew up in the Godard, Fellini world [of storytelling] and all that. ."
~ George Lucas, Time, A Conversation With George Lucas

"I had never seen anything that powerful or cinematographic. The emotions were so strong that it didn't matter that I did not understand the culture or the traditions. From that moment on, Kurosawa's films have served as one of my strongest sources of creative inspiration."
~ George Lucas, 2004 appearance hosting Kurosawa's films at "The Films of My Life: Bay Area Filmmakers and the Movies They Love."

Throughout Revenge of the Sith Lucas refers to a wide range of films and other sources drawing on political, military and mythological motifs to enhance the impact of his story. Palpatine's appearance and actions are also reminiscent of Doctor Mabuse, particularly as portrayed by German actor Rudolph Klein-Rogge in Fritz Lang's films. Anakin also bears a resemblance to a villainous character played by Klein-Rogge from a film by Lang ? the mad scientist Rotwang from the classic film Metropolis. Both Anakin and Rotwang wear a menacing leather glove on one hand and are obsessed with saving ? or resurrecting ? a lost loved one. Also, Rotwang builds the android whose appearance heavily influenced the image of Lucas' C-3PO, who was built by Anakin prior to The Phantom Menace.

Darth Vader and his legion of Clone troopers march on the Jedi Temple in a direct reference to the well-known "Odessa Steps" sequence from The Battleship Potemkin.

Following the march on the Jedi Temple sequence (itself a direct tribute to Sergei Eisenstein's "Odessa Steps" montage in The Battleship Potemkin; save that the white-armored troopers are marching up the steps), Lucas' editing schemes during Order 66, the slaughter of the Separatists and the declaration of the Galactic Empire are reminiscent of the montage of massacres during the christening scene of The Godfather, a film directed by mentor Francis Ford Coppola.

Palpatine has been compared to Iago, the villain of Shakespeare's Othello by many, including McDiarmid himself. In Othello, Iago manipulates the title character into believing that his wife has committed adultery with his confidante and lieutenant. In Revenge of the Sit

Actually, the involvement of both UFO technology and Atlantis is possble, if the Tower of Babel is what Indy is looking for. There is a Theory that the Babylonians had some knowledge of space travel from the Sumerians, that was lost after the great flood. The Theory was that the Babylonians were attempting to achieve space flight, like the Extra Terestrials/Ancient Astronaughts who visited the Sumerians, and created the Tower of Babel as a lunching pad. There is also a theory that Atlantis was built by the Sumerians with knowledge given to them by these Extra terestrials, and was sunken during the great flood.

I doubt that they will go this route. I just wanted to show how the rumors of UFOs, Atlantis, and the Tower of Babel could connect together.

Tower of Bable was covered in an other Indy Game already, doubt they'd use it.

Obi-Chron, please, stop reiterating your arguments. You've articulated the exact same point myriad times in myriad ways. Perhaps respond to the allegation that the definition of the MacGuffin has changed over time, or possibly to my post concerning the macguffin.

Obi-Chron, please, stop reiterating your arguments. You've articulated the exact same point myriad times in myriad ways. Perhaps respond to the allegation that the definition of the MacGuffin has changed over time, or possibly to my post concerning the macguffin.

DarthLowBudget -- Congratulations on your self-promotion to MOD!

I'm simply citing different linked references or quotes to support my POV that Lucas knows exactly what he is talking about as a student of the old art and a master of the new art, which some seem to dispute. I'm fully crediting Lucas' understanding of movie terminology with evidence, not opinion, but I'm certainly not insulting anyone for stating their opinions. And most importantly, I'm not telling anyone else what they should and should not post if their posts do not fit my particular view of the universe. That would be most rude and violate the terms of use for these boards.

I'm simply citing different linked references or quotes to support my POV that Lucas knows exactly what he is talking about as a student of the old art and a master of the new art, which some seem to dispute. I'm fully crediting Lucas' understanding of movie terminology with evidence, not opinion, but I'm certainly not insulting anyone for stating their opinions. And most importantly, I'm not telling anyone else what they should and should not post if their posts do not fit my particular view of the universe. That would be most rude and violate the terms of use for these boards.

We don't dispute that Lucas is aware of film terminology, but there's no need to call DarthLowBudget out over your stubborness to take anything else being said into consideration.

DarthLowBudget said:

Why would somebody be worried about something in the first fifteen minutes of a film, and no where else, being controverisal? It just doesn't make sense. Also, if this was just the opening of the movie he's referring to, why refer to dealing with it through the supernatural? Have any other opening objects involved the supernatural even peripherally? No.

How about addressing that, rather than posting a lot of irrelevant quotes about Lucas's film-making pedigree?

Obi-Chron, please, stop reiterating your arguments. You've articulated the exact same point myriad times in myriad ways. Perhaps respond to the allegation that the definition of the MacGuffin has changed over time, or possibly to my post concerning the macguffin.

DarthLowBudget -- Congratulations on your self-promotion to MOD!

I'm simply citing different linked references or quotes to support my POV that Lucas knows exactly what he is talking about as a student of the old art and a master of the new art, which some seem to dispute. I'm fully crediting Lucas' understanding of movie terminology with evidence, not opinion, but I'm certainly not insulting anyone for stating their opinions. And most importantly, I'm not telling anyone else what they should and should not post if their posts do not fit my particular view of the universe. That would be most rude and violate the terms of use for these boards.

The self promotion comment is most unappreciated, thank you for making a personal attack on my character (something I did not do to you).

I was merley expressing my frustration at the fact that I had difficulty keeping track of my place in the thread because it occasionally grows difficult to tell your posts apart from one another because they are so similar. I'm not telling you what and what not to post, I was merley asking you to stop reiterating the same point. Last time I checked that was acceptable in most (if not all) forms of discourse, as reiteration can end up being to the detriment of a conversation that is attempting to make forward motion in terms of the discussion of a topic.

Basically what you are doing ammounts to ignoring anyone else's arguments and responses in favor of saying the same thing over and over again.

If this were a formalized debate (which I am well aware it is not) you would've lost the round becuase by failing to acknowledge countering arguments put to you, you concede that they are true by not making an attempt to refute them in anyway.

But never mind anything I say, because, apparently, I'm nothing more than an impetuous upstart with delusions of modhood.

*disclaimer* you may now proceed to post in anyway you feel nessecary.

We don't dispute that Lucas is aware of film terminology, but there's no need to call DarthLowBudget out over your stubborness to take anything else being said into consideration.

[Ahem] Just 'who' is calling out 'who' here? And who keeps replying to my posts each time I cite different linked and/or verifiable info? Is the reply to my posts dialog or stubborness? I'm not responding to thin air here!

Seems there is a bias in just what is and what is not OK to reiterate on this particular thread. Since I do not believe jp-30 used the correct interpretation of MacGuffin/McGuffin/etc. in the original post, am I not entititled to submit my defense of Lucas and his use of the term when my posts are replied to? Or am I supposed to immediately accept the dissenting (and what I consider to be inaccurate) replies, stand down and post no longer?

My 'calling out' of 'LowBudget' was legit -- DLB is not a mod and has no right to tell me to stop posting my opinion, which was factually and non-offensively presented. And if 'LowBudget' is offended by that, my sincere apologies (honestly). Citing linked or noted quotes allows dissenting members to 'check the facts' should they not fear the truth -- and the truth is out there!

I will never tell anyone to stop posting if their post were not offensive nor vile towards another. In that case I PM a mod. Like my posts or not, they are what they are -- clean and verifiable, and only in response to a reply to one of my posts.

If you do not wish to view any reply that I make from here on in, skip over it. I encourage you to do so. It is your right on these boards and the 'polite' thing to do.

I don't see anywhere else to post this, so if it goes somewhere else, please direct me there. But, I thought you'd like to know that Sean Connery is indeed "mulling" over the idea of returning to play Indy's dad, and is likely to if he likes the script.

George Lucas has often referred to the sought-after artifacts in the Indiana Jones movies as MacGuffins. However, the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (as well the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)) doesn't precisely fit the mold of a MacGuffin, since it has meaning outside the film and plays a role in the film's climax. When they were deciding the screenplay for the fourth Indiana Jones movie, screen writers often asked themselves "What would be a good MacGuffin?"

I don't see anywhere else to post this, so if it goes somewhere else, please direct me there. But, I thought you'd like to know that Sean Connery is indeed "mulling" over the idea of returning to play Indy's dad, and is likely to if he likes the script.

Sean Connery is one of the all-time greats, and he was brilliant as Henry Jones. But he is getting older and probably doesn't have too many opportunities this attractive anymore. After "mulling" it over, he'll do it.

George Lucas has often referred to the sought-after artifacts in the Indiana Jones movies as MacGuffins. However, the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (as well the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)) doesn't precisely fit the mold of a MacGuffin, since it has meaning outside the film and plays a role in the film's climax. When they were deciding the screenplay for the fourth Indiana Jones movie, screen writers often asked themselves "What would be a good MacGuffin?"

Interesting footnote -- I wish there were quoted references or links to where he specifically says things like that. I know of many quote of Lucas speaking of the central plot devices like the ark and grail, but can't find Lucas ever equating them to a MacGuffin/McGuffin.

Thanks! And rest assured that if I've 'ranted' wrongly on my POV in defense of Lucas, I will definitely admit it. Anyone know the best way to eat crow?

And RE; The MacGuffin -- a term originated by Alfred Hitchcock, HERE'S another site that states it is an 'irrelevant plot device' -- from Hitchcock himself. So the MacGuffin GL speaks of is not a sacred object!

But you're wrong. By the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, we realize that the Ark of the Covenant was a MacGuffin. It drove the story along, and Indy didn't really do anything to change that. If Indy hadn't been in the movie, the Nazis still would have attained the Ark and they still would have been destroyed by it. The last shot is where we realize that the Ark was a MacGuffin, where it's simply shuffled in along with millions of other crates.

Well, since this is the 'sacred object' thread, I'm going to depart from the semantical argument over the MacGuffin and offer an opinion on the plot and object.

1950 - the Cold War is forefront, but the Korean War was the hallmark event of the Cold War in 1950. So I think you a strong possibility to see N Korea and/or China as the source for the villains. Buddhism was the prevalent major religion in that region at the time. Shahmanism was also very big. Maybe an aritifact connected to Korea? The controversial part might be something tied to Kim Jong Il:

According to an old legend, presented as fact in North Korean propaganda, the Korean state was founded in 2333 B.C. by a god-man named Tangun. The god-man, whose mother was a bear-woman, was supposedly born on Mt. Paekdu, which is a spectacular extinct volcano straddling the border of China and North Korea. Indeed, Mt. Paekdu has been regarded since ancient times as a sacred mountain, embodying the spirit of the Korean people. Recently, North Korean archeologists claimed to have found the tomb of the god-man near a different border?between North Korea's capital city, Pyongyang, and the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea. New Yorker Article

Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il have tried to tie themselves to the Mt. Paekdu. In 1990, N Korea claimed that they found Tangun's burial site at an archeological site.